Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-009 Council ResolutionCITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-09 RESOULTION SUPPORTING PRINCIPLES FOR REFORM OF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, regional planning and local government cooperation is vital to the continued success of the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is, by statute, the regional planning agency for the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area, with broad authority, including the ability to levy taxes, charge fees, and set regional policy; and WHEREAS, cities and counties are the entities most directly affected by policies and financial decisions of the Metropolitan Council, making them the primary constituents of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's scope of authority and involvement in regional issues has expanded significantly over the years; and WHEREAS, a governmental entity, particularly one with taxing authority, to be effective, must be credible, responsive, and accountable to those it represents; and WHEREAS, the appointment of Metropolitan Council members resides solely with the Governor, effectively making the Governor the primary constituent of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the Metropolitan Council lacks accountability and responsiveness to them as direct constituents; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the authority to impose taxes and set regional policy should be the responsibility of local government elected officials; and WHEREAS, reform is necessary to ensure that the Metropolitan Council is an effective, responsive, and accountable partner for regional development and progress. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes that the Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Metropolitan Council should not operate as a state agency answerable to only one person, the Governor, as it does in its current form; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Lino Lake City Council supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that adheres to the following principles: 1. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region; 2. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council; 3. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council; 4. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor; 5. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government; 6. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 22nd day of February 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member Kusterman and was duly seconded by Council Member Raf ferty and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Kusterman, Rafferty, Manthey, Maher, Reinert The following voted against same: none ATTEST: J ianne Bartell, ty Cler Jeff Reinert; Mayor CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson MEETING DATE: February 22, 2016 TOPIC: Call for Reform of Metropolitan Council VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION A coalition of county and city leaders is asking other elected officials to support a call for reform of the Metropolitan Council by adopting a resolution with principles for strengthening regional planning and development. BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Council was established in 1967 to provided regional planning services for a seven -county area in the Twin Cities area, which includes Anoka County. Over the years, the Council's scope for managing growth has increased, but not its level of accountability to local governments and citizens. Many citizens and local government officials feel disconnected from the Metropolitan Council, which undermines its credibility and prevents it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. The coalition of county and city leaders is asking the City Council to join them in their call for reform by adopting the attached resolution. RECOMMENDATION Approval of Resolution No. 16-09, supporting principles for reform of Metropolitan Council. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 16-09 Letter from Coalition of County and City Leaders Metropolitan Governance Reform Principles FAQ's on Metropolitan Council Reform Rhonda Sivarajah Chair, District #6 Anoka County COUNTY ADMINISTRATION Respectful, Innovative, Fiscaliye Responsible February 8, 2016 Dear Council Member. We are part of a coalition of county and city leaders from the suburban metropolitan area who have become increasingly concemed with a lack of accountability from the Metropolitan Council, especially as its scope of authority and involvement in regional issues continue to expand. It is our belief that an updated Metropolitan Council governance structure, one that makes the Council accountable to the regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions, would benefit this region greatly. We seek your support for the attached principles for reform that would increase local participation and collaboration to help guide orderly growth and economic development in our region. We ask that you adopt the attached resolution calling for substantive change to the Council. Structure Limits Local Representation Metropolitan Council members are non -elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. We believe the Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong county representation and representation from other local elected officials. This call for reform echoes the 2011 conclusion of the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor. In the evaluation report Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region, Legislative Auditor Nobles recommended a Council with a mix of gubernatorial appointees and elected officials from the region. Substantial Changes in Role of Council Since 1967 The Metropolitan Council was established in 1967 to provide regional planning services for the Twin Cities area. However, at the same time the Council's management of growth, and in particular its coordination of regional services, has changed dramatically. The Council's scope has increased, but not its level of accountability to the local govemments and citizens of the metropolitan area. Many citizens and local government officials feel disconnected from the present Metropolitan Council, undermining its credibility and preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. In closing, we hope you will join us in our call for reform by adopting the attached resolution with principles to strengthen regional planning and development. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to present this and discuss further. Please contact Claire Pritchard at 651-438-4540 (or at Claire.Pritchardna,co.dakota.mn.us) for more information or to schedule a presentation by an elected official to your Council or Board. We look forward to working with you in this effort to unite the region for continued growth and prosperity. Please make every effort to return the adopted resolution to Claire.Pritchard(ii co.dakota.mn.us by Tuesday, March 8, or as early as possible given your approval process. Rhonda Sivarajah, Chair Brian Kirkham Anoka County Board of Commissioner Bethel City Council Mayor, Lino T akes Government Center A 2100 3rd Avenue, Suite 700 A Anoka, MN 55303-5024 A www.anokacounty.us Office: 763-323-5700 a Fax: 763-323-5682 A TDD/TTY: 763-323-5289 Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer Metropolitan Governance Reform Twin Cities' Local Govemment Coalition -Statement of Objectives - A coalition of local governments throughout the metropolitan area has joined together to develop a position statement and a set of principles for improving metropolitan governance in the Twin Cities. The Coalition supports the need for regional planning, collaboration and coordination, but seeks to expand local government representation on the Metropolitan Council. The Coalition's objectives for its collective effort to improved governance are: 1. To articulate a vision of responsive and effective metropolitan governance—as represented by a Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council 2. To align local government interests behind a reform effort—through formation of a broad coalition of metropolitan Cities and Counties—and a common position. 3. To be prepared for any efforts—legislative and otherwise—to reform the governance structure and functioning of the Metropolitan Council. Attached is the Coalition's Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform. Twin Cities' Local Government Coalition Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform The following principles were developed by a coalition of cities and counties in the metropolitan area, a coalition created to advocate for reform of the Metropolitan Council. The group believes that an effective Metropolitan Council should reflect the following principles, which were developed based on the group's core Statement of Belief (printed below). STATEMENT OF BELIEF: The Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions. It should not operate as a state agency—as it does in its current form—answerable to only one person, the Governor. Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform: I. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region. II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council. III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council. IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor. V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government. VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. 2 Background and Justification of Position The Metropolitan Council was created to provide for the orderly and economic development of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It has the responsibility and authority to guide the region's growth and to provide important regional services. The Counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott support the concept of a regional approach, and have no wish to abolish the Council or diminish the importance of regional collaboration. However, the Council's management of growth, and in particular the coordination and delivery of regional services has changed dramatically. At the same time, the role of counties has evolved. Increasingly, Counties have undertaken direct provision of regional services including: hazardous and solid waste management, transit funding and transitway development, regional parks, regional highways, water resources planning and watershed management, greenway and bikeway development, farmland and open space preservation, the regional library system, fiber communications networks, and the 800 MHz radio network. The Council's recent focus on reducing poverty and disparities makes it even more essential that within the governance structure there is understanding and improved coordination with county programs --- which exclusively provide economic assistance, social services, workforce development/employment, counseling, public health, nutrition and family "home visiting" services, workforce and specialized housing programs and many other anti -poverty and human services. In these and many other circumstances, the State, Metropolitan Council and city governments have all looked to counties to provide both the financial and political leadership needed to address key regional issues. Thus, while a strong regional approach is necessary for many issues, it is necessary for the regional governing body to feature strong county representation, as well as representation from other local elected officials. Currently, the members of the Council are non -elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder. The best way to ensure that the interests of citizens of the metropolitan -area are represented is to have a preponderance of locally elected officials on the Council—individuals that do not serve exclusively at the pleasure of the Governor. This will have the added benefit of allowing the Council to meet federal guidelines to serve as the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization, a move encouraged by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to make the Council "more directly accountable to its public'." Regional governance is vital to the metropolitan area's continued success. However, in order for a regional body to be effective it must be credible, meaning that regional citizens must feel that the body effectively represents their goals and values. Citizens currently feel disconnected from the Metropolitan Council, preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. The coalition of suburban counties is working to join the Metropolitan Council with the people it represents, so the region as a whole can unite for continued growth and prosperity. Letter from representatives of FTA and FHA to Ann R. Goering of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A., Aug. 3 2015 3 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REFORM PRINCIPLES 1) Why now? Reform of the Metropolitan Council has been an issue on the minds of many local governments for many years. However, political realities have created obstacles that thwarted many previous attempts at reform. The release of ThriveMSP2040 reinvigorated the drive for reform in many cities and counties who were unhappy with aspects of the plan. However, our call for change is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. Councilmembers do not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one: the Governor. We realized this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst that renewed our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 2) Who makes up the coalition? The coalition originated with officials from Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott Counties, who share a collective opinion that the Metropolitan Council must be more accountable to the regional constituency. They made the decision to develop principles for reform, and, knowing it was important to have the perspective of cities represented as well, invited certain city officials with interest in reform to join the group. The city officials (listed in Attachment A) represent themselves alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of their entire councils. Together this group developed a mutually -agreed-upon set of principles for reform. 3) You're asking cities to adopt these principles, knowing that they go against the position of Metro Cities. Doesn't this undermine the work of the Metro Cities organization? We believe that Metro Cities plays a vital role in advocating for city interests, and we did invite them to play a part in the development of the shared principles. However, they ultimately decided to withdraw from the group due the incompatibility of our positions. We had hoped to work together toward reform, and we hope to work together in the future if the position of the organization changes. However, in the meantime we are aware of many cities with positions on Metropolitan Council reform that contradict the official Metro Cities position, and we believe that those cities should have their voices heard in the Legislature. 1 4) What are the next steps? These draft principles have been distributed to every city and county in the metropolitan area, and we hope to have as many as possible adopt these principles. We are happy to discuss the principles, along with our reasons for wanting reform, with any Board or Council in the area. During the Legislative Session we will present these adopted resolutions to Legislators to illustrate how important reform is to local governments in the metro -area, and we will work with Legislators to advance reform proposals that meet the adopted principles. 5) How do other cities do it? Every other major metropolitan area's regional planning organization (see Attachment B), as well as every other regional planning organization in Minnesota, is made up of a majority of local elected officials. 6) Is this an effort to get rid of the Metropolitan Council? Absolutely not. Regional governance is important, but it would be more effective and credible with local representation. In the current system, Metropolitan Council members are non- elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong county representation from local elected officials. 7) Is this a reaction to the ThriveMSP2040 plan? No. Many cities and counties were unhappy with aspects of the Council's plan. However, our call for reform is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home to many what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. The Council does not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one- the Governor. We realized that this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst to renew our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 8) Is there other support for this? Yes, many other entities and organizations have come out in support for reform. In 2011, for example, the Office of the Legislative Auditor released a report recommending that the Metropolitan Council be composed of a majority elected officials, citing the Council's "limited credibility" due to a governance structure that limits accountability. 2 The City of Minneapolis also passed a resolution on January 14, 2011, asking the Legislature to reform the Council so that a "majority of council members shall be locally elected city and county officials." Furthermore, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, responsible for certifying the Council as eligible to receive federal transportation and transit funding, have encouraged reform of the Council to make it "more directly accountable to its public." 9) Would these principles turn the Metropolitan Council into a Council of Governments (COG)? No. Councils of Governments have little authority beyond transportation planning and regional coordination of service. The level of authority that the Legislature has granted the Metropolitan Council, including the authority to levy taxes, is unique. None of the proposed principles diminish Council authority in any way, and will not transform the Council into a COG. 10) Do you oppose the Governor? No. This is not a partisan issue- we would feel the same way whether the Governor was a Republican or a Democrat. What troubles us is that the entire membership and focus of the Council can shift depending on who is in power. The Council should represent the interests of the region, not a single individual. 11) Is this about the suburbs complaining? No. This is about ensuring that the entire region feels represented by the Metropolitan Council. 12) Is the Met Council accountable to their constituents? No. Although the Met Council has the power to levy taxes on metropolitan area residents, it is not accountable to those residents and is instead solely accountable to the Governor, an individual that over the last five election cycles was only once elected with majority support from metro -area voters. 3 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES THEMSELVES: 13) Aren't local elected officials too busy to serve on the Council? There is a time commitment to serving on the Council, true, but it is only a part-time engagement. Many current Metropolitan Council members hold other full-time jobs. Furthermore, local elected officials serve on the metropolitan planning organizations of every other large city in the country. If these principles are enacted it will be part of cities and counties' role to ensure that those appointed to the Council are comfortable with the time commitment. 14) Isn't it a conflict of interest to ask an official elected by one specific city or county to represent an entire region? Local elected officials already serve in many capacities where they must consider regional interests. The Council's Transportation Advisory Board, for example, which recommends allocation of transportation and transit funding throughout the region, is made up of majority of local elected officials. The Counties Transit Improvement Board and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Board are two other examples where local elected officials serve and represent the interests of an entire region. Even the structure of County Boards and City Councils requires local elected officials to represent the interests of the entire city/county, rather than the specific district that elected them. 15) What happens if a local elected official leaves office in the middle of his/her Metropolitan Council appointment? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get into the details of a specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. These issues will be considered as a plan develops. 16) What about the criticisms of the role of the Council? These principles don't address any of that. True, and many of us do have thoughts on the role of the Council. However, we believe that the first step is to reform the governance of the Council. Once the Council is accountable to its metropolitan constituency we can consider the role that it should play in the region's future. 17) You mention a system of voting and checks and balances- can you elaborate? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get into the details of a specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. However, we do believe that the Council should represent all citizens in the area, without allowing the large urban core to drive all decision making. 4 ATTACHMENT A: PARTICIPANTS IN THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP Participating County Officials: Anoka County: Carver County: Dakota County: Scott County: Commissioner Matt Look Commissioner Scott Schulte Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah County Administrator Jerry Soma Commissioner Randy Maluchnik Commissioner Tom Workman County Administrator Dave Hemze Commissioner Chris Gerlach Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler Commissioner Liz Workman County Manager Brandt Richardson Commissioner Mike Beard Commissioner Jon Ulrich County Administrator Gary Shelton Participating City Officials: Bethel: Councilmember Brian Kirkham Burnsville: Councilmember Bill Coughlin Chanhassen: Mayor Denny Laufenburger Elko New Market: Mayor Bob Crawford Jordan: Councilmember Mike Franklin Lino Lakes: Mayor Jeff Reinert Prior Lake: Mayor Ken Hedberg Rosemount: Councilmember Jeff Weisensel Shakopee: Mayor Bill Mars Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas nicture ve!:,/s, " The Board includes 20 local elected officials as well as non-voting members from various San Diego Association of state and federal agencies and other organizations. Governments Metropolitan Council Summary: All voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. The Board consists of 15 local elected officials, 4 other government representatives, and 1 citizen representative (position is currently vacant). 1, North Jersey Transportation The 3 other govemment representatives are from the Port Authority, the NJ Governor's Planning Authority Authorities Unit, Ni Department of Transportation, and NJ TRANSIT. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Oakland CA) Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member. The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, 2 representatives of the federal government, 1 representative of state government, and 2 representatives of local organizations. The state representative is from the California State Transportation Agency. The 1 organizations are the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. The Board consists of 30 local elected officials, 6 judges, and 1 representative of the Independent School Districts. The local elected officials represent cities and counties in the metro area, although some Houston -Galveston Area Council cities and counties are represented by judges. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas The Board consists of 9 local elected officials, 3 judges, and a non-voting member of the Texas Legislature. The metro -area cities are represented by mayors or councilmembers; the counties are North Central Texas Council of { represented by judges. Governments Boston Region MPO Atlanta Regional Commission Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials (although there are no county elected officials- counties are represented by judges). There are no citizen members. The Board consists of 14 local elected officials, 8 representatives from other governments and organizations, and 2 nonvoting representatives from the federal government. The elected officials are all mayors and selectmen of local towns; there are no county representatives. There are 2 representatives from regional planning organizations, as well as representatives from regional transit and transportation authorities and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of the voting members are local elected officials. There are also no citizen members. The Board consists of 23 local elected officials, 15 citizens, and 1 non-voting representative from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. There is 1 citizen representative from each of 15 districts in the metro area, elected by the 23 public officials. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are citizen members selected by local elected officials. The Council has a general assembly consisting of all elected officials from all member jurisdictions. The Assembly establishes the budget and elects representatives to the Executive Board. Puget Sound Regional Council The Executive Board consists of 30 elected officials and 2 representatives from the Washington State Transportation Commission and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are selected by local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas The Board consists of 32 local elected officials and 2 representatives from state government. National Capital Region The 2 state representatives are legislators from the Maryland and Virginia General Transportation Planning Board Assemblies. Maricopa Association of Governments There are also 2 representatives each from the State Transportation Board and the Arizona Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen members. The Council consists of 32 local elected officials, 4 state representatives, and 1 member of j a citizen organization. The elected officials are mayors, councilmembers, etc. from metro towns, cities, and reservations. Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Finally, there is a representative from the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member, a representative of a citizen oversight commission. The Executive Committee consists of 11 local elected officials, 3 at -large members, and representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Economic Development, Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are 3 at -large members. The Board consists of 16 state government appointees, 24 local government elected officials and staff, and 2 attorneys. as well as a number of non-voting members. There are 4 representatives from the PA Department of Transportation and 3 from the NJ Department of Transportation. There are also 3 representatives from the PA Governor's Policy Office, 1 other PA Governor's appointee, 3 from the NJ Department of Community Affairs, and 2 appointees from the NJ Governor. Summary: The majority of voting members are either local elected officials or local government staff members. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas New York Metropolitan Transportation Council The Board consists of 5 local elected officials, 3 city representatives, 1 state representative, and 7 non-voting members from various federal and state agencies. The 5 local elected officials are the County Executives of the 5 metro counties. The city representatives are heads of the New York City Transportation Authority, Department of Transportation, and Department of City Planning. The state representative is from the New York State Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials or representatives from city government. There are no citizen members. Baltimore Regional Transportation Board A representative from the Maryland Department of Transportation has voting privileges. The Board consists of 7 local elected officials and 4 representatives from state departments (3 non-voting). Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Summary: All voting members, except one, are local elected officials. The Council has a general assembly consisting of delegates from all local governments in the region. The Executive Committee consists of local elected officials as well as representatives from community colleges and the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. The Board consists of appointments from each of the metro counties- the members are a combination of elected officials and representatives of nonprofits and private industry. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for There are also 2 non-voting Governor's appointees and a non-voting representative of the Planning Regional Transportation Authority. Southern California Association of Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials and all are appointed by local jurisdictions. There is a Citizens' Advisory Committee created by the Board. The Regional Council consists of elected local officials representing 67 districts, all members of the Los Angeles City Council and the Mayor, as well as 1 elected representative from each of the 6 counties in the district, and representatives from regional transportation commissions and tribal governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Minnesota rn The Board consists of 15 Local elected officials from Minnesota and Wisconsin, 2 citizens, and one representative from the Duluth Transit Authority. Duluth -Superior Metropolitan There are two citizen members, one representing the City of Duluth and one the City of Interstate Council Superior. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. The Board consists of 6 local elected officials as well as 2 representatives from the Grand Forks East Grand Forks Planning Commissions of the City of Grand Forks and the City of East Grand Forks. Metropolitan Planning Organization Fargo -Moorhead Metropolitan Council St. Cloud Area Planning Organization Metropolitan Council Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Board consists of 11 elected officials and 3 representatives from the Fargo and Moorhead Planning Commissions. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Board consists of 11 local elected officials as well as representatives from the Central Minnesota Transportation Alliance and St. Cloud Metro Bus. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, including 2 representatives from school districts, and 2 citizen members. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. La Crosse Area Planning The Board consists of 10 local elected officials. Committee Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives Mankato/North Mankato Area The Board is made up of 6 local elected officials. Planning Organization Summary: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives.